So anyone personally affected by this government shutdown/debt ceiling nonsense?

[Tarzan_]

Both of you clearly didn't read my post thoroughly enough.  Try again.

You mean, this part?

...too many people that are milking it and turning them into some sort of cool kids hipster culture.

Offered with no proof, of course.  Gosh, how could I have been so rude as to completely misunderstand your point?  Shame on me.

[mauri]

Both of you clearly didn't read my post thoroughly enough.  Try again.

Well you know even suggesting that food stamps are not a good way to spend tax dollars is outright evil and sarcasm doesn't really transpire thru written word unless made utterly apparent

[Krogenar]

One thing that needs to be (mostly) tossed in a fire are food stamps.  There are many families that definitely need them but there are also too many people that are milking it and turning them into some sort of cool kids hipster culture.

I think if you ended the fraud endemic to the food stamp program, then food stamps are a great program. Giving people a way to get through a bad time (a "safety net") is a great idea, but the current system is not a safety net, it's a hammock, a way of life. My mother was on welfare for a short time, and she couldn't wait to get off the program; there was a stigma attached to it: "I'm someone who needs a handout." Today, there's no stigma to receiving a handout at all. YouTube is full of EBT card rap songs. Jesus said, "the poor will always be with you" and I think there will always be people who need help, and Americans should help one another. I just don't believe the federal government is the best way to do it, or that our current system is working very well.

EDIT: Oh, and food stamps used to actual stamps, and you couldn't use them to buy pornography, lap dances or Jack Daniels. They were for buying milk, bread, eggs and baby formula -- necessities. But since it's a way of life today, it's been transformed into a credit card and you can buy whatever you want, as far as I can see.

[Tarzan_]

One thing that needs to be (mostly) tossed in a fire are food stamps.  There are many families that definitely need them but there are also too many people that are milking it and turning them into some sort of cool kids hipster culture.

I think if you ended the fraud endemic to the food stamp program, then food stamps are a great program. Giving people a way to get through a bad time (a "safety net") is a great idea, but the current system is not a safety net, it's a hammock, a way of life. My mother was on welfare for a short time, and she couldn't wait to get off the program; there was a stigma attached to it: "I'm someone who needs a handout." Today, there's no stigma to receiving a handout at all. YouTube is full of EBT card rap songs. Jesus said, "the poor will always be with you" and I think there will always be people who need help, and Americans should help one another. I just don't believe the federal government is the best way to do it, or that our current system is working very well.

Yeah, it's all too apparent.  Read any thread on RedState, or WSJ; there is a streak of hatred a mile wide running right down the middle of the Republican Party.  How dare they take OUR money and give it to THOSE KIND OF PEOPLE?!

Meaning poor people, of course.  Billions in taxpayer dollars given to corporations to bail them out of poor business decisions is just peachy keen.

Btw; nice dog whistle there.  "Rap songs."  Hmmm, who listens to rap music in America?  Can you help me out there?  I know I can't stand Eminem, but you didn't mean middle class white people, did you?

[SpAmRaY]

Most of the white people I know who are disabled and can't physically work get turned down for disability. My dad included. 

Also I'm not being racist just stating a fact.
 

[Tym]

Most of the white people I know who are disabled and can't physically work get turned down for disability. My dad included. 

Over here, if you own a pair of crutches they'll throw money at you.

[Krogenar]

Until wealthy people (and "people" includes corporations thanks to a corrupt Reconstruction-era Supreme Court decision) no longer control our government, they will expend vast resources to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

With respect fohat, this is a crock -- who do you define as "wealthy", anyway? Roughly half of all Americans don't pay any Federal income taxes. That top half pays everything. And of that top half, what percentage of the overall tax burden do you think the top 10% of all income earners pay?

From Forbes: http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/

The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.

So ten people walk into a restaurant, have dinner, and one of them handles 70% of the final bill, and it's still not enough? The idea that wealthy people are constantly avoiding paying taxes is just nonsense. That 10% who pay 70% are mostly small business owners. They qualify as "wealthy" but they're not Gwyneth Paltrow rich. They're not so rich that they can hire a batallion of lawyers to find every available tax shelter and loophole. The .25% of the wealthiest, yeah, they can do that.

Why not just make everyone pay a little, and make it less burdensome so the desire to find every loophole is less enticing? If government cost me 10% of my income, ok. 20%? *sigh* ok, I guess. But when I start giving close to 50% to the government, yeah, I naturally start to look for ways to lower that number.

So when my bills far, far exceed my income, my first reaction is to ... increase my income? That's a lot harder. Most normal people would try to control their spending, that's a lot easier. But not the Federal government -- they act as though their income is limitless.

[Tarzan_]

Most of the white people I know who are disabled and can't physically work get turned down for disability. My dad included. 

Also I'm not being racist just stating a fact.

My dad had the same problem getting disability, despite two different back injuries.  It's a good thing there are other programs to provide some coverage, though.  Over 50% of all food stamp recipients are white, that's the largest demographic receiving benefits from the government.

[Krogenar]

Most of the white people I know who are disabled and can't physically work get turned down for disability. My dad included. 

Also I'm not being racist just stating a fact.

(throws arm over Ray's shoulder): "It was nice knowin' you, Ray."

[Tarzan_]

Until wealthy people (and "people" includes corporations thanks to a corrupt Reconstruction-era Supreme Court decision) no longer control our government, they will expend vast resources to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

With respect fohat, this is a crock -- who do you define as "wealthy", anyway? Roughly half of all Americans don't pay any Federal income taxes. That top half pays everything. And of that top half, what percentage of the overall tax burden do you think the top 10% of all income earners pay?

From Forbes: http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/

The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.

So ten people walk into a restaurant, have dinner, and one of them handles 70% of the final bill, and it's still not enough? The idea that wealthy people are constantly avoiding paying taxes is just nonsense. That 10% who pay 70% are mostly small business owners. They qualify as "wealthy" but they're not Gwyneth Paltrow rich. They're not so rich that they can hire a batallion of lawyers to find every available tax shelter and loophole. The .25% of the wealthiest, yeah, they can do that.

Why not just make everyone pay a little, and make it less burdensome so the desire to find every loophole is less enticing? So when my bills far, far exceed my income, my first reaction is to ... increase my income? That's a lot harder. Most normal people would try to control their spending, that's a lot easier. But not the Federal government -- they act as though their income is limitless.

One of the things that's hardest to teach my team is how to look at the whole problem, not just the first symptom they encounter when trying to troubleshoot an issue.  Your post is a perfect example.  A list of pat talking points masquerading as system flaws, and a flawed conclusion.

Meh.  It doesn't do any good to present facts, and I don't care enough about your opinions to try.

Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

[Krogenar]

One thing that needs to be (mostly) tossed in a fire are food stamps.  There are many families that definitely need them but there are also too many people that are milking it and turning them into some sort of cool kids hipster culture.

I think if you ended the fraud endemic to the food stamp program, then food stamps are a great program. Giving people a way to get through a bad time (a "safety net") is a great idea, but the current system is not a safety net, it's a hammock, a way of life. My mother was on welfare for a short time, and she couldn't wait to get off the program; there was a stigma attached to it: "I'm someone who needs a handout." Today, there's no stigma to receiving a handout at all. YouTube is full of EBT card rap songs. Jesus said, "the poor will always be with you" and I think there will always be people who need help, and Americans should help one another. I just don't believe the federal government is the best way to do it, or that our current system is working very well.

Yeah, it's all too apparent.  Read any thread on RedState, or WSJ; there is a streak of hatred a mile wide running right down the middle of the Republican Party.  How dare they take OUR money and give it to THOSE KIND OF PEOPLE?!

Meaning poor people, of course.  Billions in taxpayer dollars given to corporations to bail them out of poor business decisions is just peachy keen.

I would end crony capitalism as well. Everything the government touches turns to crap -- the less they touch the better.

Btw; nice dog whistle there.  "Rap songs."  Hmmm, who listens to rap music in America?  Can you help me out there?  I know I can't stand Eminem, but you didn't mean middle class white people, did you?

The video was made by someone who is apparently black, not that it matters, I'm sure there are people of every color who are "proud" to be on public assistance. Also, the "dog whistle" crap is getting old. Are your arguments so weak that your only comeback is "you're a racist"? My point is that these programs not only perpetuate economic poverty, but also spiritual and cultural poverty. If you're going to accuse me of being heartless, then I'm going to accuse you of being brainless. No serious person could look at these programs and believe that they're helping people. The programs put food in their bellies, but are clearly not helping them become empowered -- far from it.

[SpAmRaY]

Honestly the biggest problem in this country (USA) is apathy. People just don't care, they want to be entertained and feel good.

And regardless of who controls the news media they suck to, one local station we have all they do is try to find the weirdest wackiest stories to boost their viewership, no quality at all. Sad.

Oh and when I was a kid my mom was a single parent going to school and I remember the books of actual stamps we got and the big block of cheese we got with it, oh the memories 

[Krogenar]

Meh.  It doesn't do any good to present facts, and I don't care enough about your opinions to try.

Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

Ok, so wait --- facts aren't worth presenting ("Meh.") and then you quote a "deeply discouraging" study that indicates that facts (i.e. -- reality) generally don't affect people's views. So reality is immaterial to you. Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Well, then stick to what you know -- vitriol. Facts do matter, especially where they intersect with people.

[Krogenar]

Honestly the biggest problem in this country (USA) is apathy. People just don't care, they want to be entertained and feel good.

QFT.

And regardless of who controls the news media they suck to, one local station we have all they do is try to find the weirdest wackiest stories to boost their viewership, no quality at all. Sad.

I'll never understand why people love sports, but detest political news and events. No matter who wins or loses, your life stays the same (well, okay, maybe you made some bets); politics will change your life, eventually.

[Tarzan_]

The video was made by someone who is apparently black, not that it matters, I'm sure there are people of every color who are "proud" to be on public assistance. Also, the "dog whistle" crap is getting old. Are your arguments so weak that your only comeback is "you're a racist"? My point is that these programs not only perpetuate economic poverty, but also spiritual and cultural poverty. If you're going to accuse me of being heartless, then I'm going to accuse you of being brainless. No serious person could look at these programs and believe that they're helping people. The programs put food in their bellies, but not helping them become empowered -- far from it.

My dad became a single parent at the age of 62, had three kids under the age of 10 to raise on a teacher's pension.  After 30 years of teaching in California, his pension was right around $100 per month.  He got Aid For Dependent Children (food stamps) to help put food on the table.

My brother, sister and I all have college degrees.  My brother is a biologist, my sister an attendant for a private jet service, and I work in for a software firm.  We all pay taxes, and pay back into the system that provided the safety net for our family.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're full of it.  The maximum most states allow families to get food stamps is 24 months, most programs have shorter deadlines.  Empowered?  What do you even think that means?  If my father was unable to get food stamps to feed his family, how empowered would that have made him?  Were we destined for spiritual and cultural poverty?  Or is that just what you tell yourself to justify your desire to take food assistance away from poor people?

After all, if they're poor, they deserve to suffer, right?  And you wonder why the Republican Party approval ratings are circling the toilet bowl.

[Tarzan_]

Honestly the biggest problem in this country (USA) is apathy. People just don't care, they want to be entertained and feel good.

And regardless of who controls the news media they suck to, one local station we have all they do is try to find the weirdest wackiest stories to boost their viewership, no quality at all. Sad.

Oh and when I was a kid my mom was a single parent going to school and I remember the books of actual stamps we got and the big block of cheese we got with it, oh the memories 

We got "commodities" a few times.  That cheese was pretty awful, but those powdered eggs?  Oh... my... gosh.  I still have nightmares.   

[Tarzan_]

Meh.  It doesn't do any good to present facts, and I don't care enough about your opinions to try.

Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

Ok, so wait --- facts aren't worth presenting ("Meh.") and then you quote a "deeply discouraging" study that indicates that facts (i.e. -- reality) generally don't affect people's views. So reality is immaterial to you. Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Well, then stick to what you know -- vitriol. Facts do matter, especially where they intersect with people.

Nice twist.  I cited that study to show how useless is was to present you with facts, in the vain hope that reality would cause you to change your mind. 

Thanks for proving my point so succinctly.   )

[SpAmRaY]

So did everyone get to go back to work today if you were furloughed?

[Tarzan_]

So did everyone get to go back to work today if you were furloughed?

I think a lot of people did, judging by the traffic this morning.  Given that agencies and organizations were only notified late last night, and lots of folks take Friday as a telecommute day, I expect Monday will be the first full day back.

[Game Theory]

Note the debt isn't specifically a US problem.

See the debt as a percent of GDP [think national income] here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24541140

[Krogenar]

My dad became a single parent at the age of 62,

How?

had three kids under the age of 10 to raise on a teacher's pension.

Again, with feeling: How? I mean, did he adopt you all, or did he choose to have three children at the age of 62? Did one of his siblings die and he stepped into the breach to support three children? Or did it happen the old-fashioned way. I mean, I probably will not be siring children when I'm 62. I'll still be rocking, I just won't bring children into the world.

After 30 years of teaching in California, his pension was right around $100 per month.  He got Aid For Dependent Children (food stamps) to help put food on the table.

My brother, sister and I all have college degrees.  My brother is a biologist, my sister an attendant for a private jet service, and I work in for a software firm.  We all pay taxes, and pay back into the system that provided the safety net for our family.

Congratulations on your success! I mean that sincerely. But what about the people whose families have been on some kind of public assistance for several generations? Has the system worked for them? It hasn't, so let's review the facts (scary!) and make it better.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're full of it.

I have no bubble to burst -- the people who believe in your position (more government, more entitlement spending) are winning and have been winning for a long time now.

The maximum most states allow families to get food stamps is 24 months, most programs have shorter deadlines.

The welfare reforms shoved down Bill Clinton's throat (and which he later claimed as a success) required that you look for a job. If after looking for a job and proving that it was in earnest, you'll get your food stamps renewed. President Obama wants to end this practice.

Empowered?  What do you even think that means?

It means that poverty is not always about what's in your wallet. Take all my money away, or all your money away and we still have wealth: we have our work ethic, our attitudes, our abilities and our families. Being on public assistance for a very long time, I believe, slowly erodes these alternate forms of wealth.

If my father was unable to get food stamps to feed his family, how empowered would that have made him?  Were we destined for spiritual and cultural poverty? Or is that just what you tell yourself to justify your desire to take food assistance away from poor people? After all, if they're poor, they deserve to suffer, right?  And you wonder why the Republican Party approval ratings are circling the toilet bowl.

I can see that you really have no intention of engaging in a rational debate. Just go on believing everyone who disagrees with you wants to kill puppies for fun. Had you even bothered to read my initial post, you would realize I support food stamps -- just end the fraud, and try to end the negative attitudes about it. I don't think you're evil -- I just think your political position is stupid and evil. I'm glad your father was able to do so well. Who is chiefly responsible for his success in raising you and your siblings? The government, or him? I put my money on him.

[Tarzan_]

A rational debate.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[fohat.digs]

There is a fundamental mindset as to how a person sees his role in the universe.

You can look at everything as a single organism or a team that needs to work together for the health and benefit of the whole, or you can look at individuals as predators with the right to take whatever they can get.

When this concept is expressed, hotheads on both sides start screaming about libertarianism and communism, but, unfortunately, each side has diametrically opposed opinions on what constitutes collateral damage and whether that is even something to avoid at all.

I believe that the most fair tax is a steeply progressive tax on wealth. You adjust fairness by adjusting how steeply progressive it is, and how high the floor is. Taxing consumption is the least fair, taxing work is problematic.

The 20% of the people who control 85% of the wealth in this country should pay 85% of the taxes, and the top echelon of them should pay the highest rate.

[Tarzan_]

There is a fundamental mindset as to how a person sees his role in the universe.

You can look at everything as a single organism or a team that needs to work together for the health and benefit of the whole, or you can look at individuals as predators with the right to take whatever they can get.

When this concept is expressed, hotheads on both sides start screaming about libertarianism and communism, but, unfortunately, each side has diametrically opposed opinions on what constitutes collateral damage and whether that is even something to avoid at all.

I believe that the most fair tax is a steeply progressive tax on wealth. You adjust fairness by adjusting how steeply progressive it is, and how high the floor is. Taxing consumption is the least fair, taxing work is problematic.

The 20% of the people who control 85% of the wealth in this country should pay 85% of the taxes, and the top echelon of them should pay the highest rate.

I agree completely.  [Even though I'm in one of those upper tax brackets...]  I also think that we are stronger as a nation, as a society, when we take care of those who need it most.  All of the nations that top the lists of highest quality of life (best places to live, best places to raise a family, best health care, etc.) are also those that have strong progressive tax rates. 

It's completely disheartening to me to see our country move away from strong foundation set in place by FDR and others, in favor of programs that have shifted massive wealth away from the lower and middle classes into the pockets of the upper 1%.  But as long as I have life, I have faith that things can be made better.  For all of us.

[Tym]

Although doesn't that remove the incentive to work hard ? If you can do less and live anyway?

[esoomenona]

Although doesn't that remove the incentive to work hard ? If you can do less and live anyway?

Or leave, and work hard somewhere that won't tax you as much.

[Tym]

Although doesn't that remove the incentive to work hard ? If you can do less and live anyway?

Or leave, and work hard somewhere that won't tax you as much.

Not here then.

[SpAmRaY]

Although doesn't that remove the incentive to work hard ? If you can do less and live anyway?

I know I said this somewhere else but it's not like I don't repeat things anyways. I could make minimum wage and barely make above poverty level and get WIC and free healthcare for the wife and kids (a few years ago, don't know about all this new stuff now) and not have to pay any income taxes or I could get a better job making more money and still only bring home roughly the same amount because the taxes went up and we lost any and all help and had to pay for it.

I chose option C however and got an even better job and now we just spend all our money.

[Tym]

What is WIC? Not sure is 'Murican' thing or just something gone over my head.

[SpAmRaY]

What is WIC? Not sure is 'Murican' thing or just something gone over my head.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic

It's a program to help baby's and small children get formula etc, you also get stuff like cheese

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk.

Of course it is different now than it was 5 years ago when we had it. Now I think they get vegetables etc

I was glad to get off of it as they were being very intrusive and wanting to know personal information they had no business knowing.

[Tym]

Over here they just give you more money to go buy TV's and more neglect your children. Then they blame social workers, because they didn't catch someone neglecting their own child in their own home. Its not the child's fault, its the social workers job yes, but they can't get to every damn case. Do the media congratulate them on a job well done? No. Do they blow every mistake sky-high ? Yes. Its the parents bloody fault.

Why should we support the parents who have 15 children yet can barely afford to eat? Should we? No. They should have their children removed and then be sterilized.

Sorry, you can guess what job one of my parents held while i was growing up. (Think she still does :3)

[Tarzan_]

Although doesn't that remove the incentive to work hard ? If you can do less and live anyway?

Not sure those two things are polar opposites.  I know many hard-working people, people who work two jobs, but hard work in America doesn't equate to being well rewarded.  At least, not any longer.

And the opposite is true as well.  I'm not sure how you have it in the UK, but most of the wealthiest 1% here, come from wealthy families.  Well-connected families, who make sure their progeny get that job in the City, working for the uncle or family friend who just happens to run a hedge fund.

[Tarzan_]

Although doesn't that remove the incentive to work hard ? If you can do less and live anyway?

Or leave, and work hard somewhere that won't tax you as much.

Where would that be, Moose?  I've heard that talking point before, but we still have the largest proportion of millionaires of any country. 

The US has one of the lowest tax rates for any developed nations, and we continue to pass laws cutting taxes on the wealthiest.  Why would anyone move?

[Tym]

Although doesn't that remove the incentive to work hard ? If you can do less and live anyway?

Not sure those two things are polar opposites.  I know many hard-working people, people who work two jobs, but hard work in America doesn't equate to being well rewarded.  At least, not any longer.

And the opposite is true as well.  I'm not sure how you have it in the UK, but most of the wealthiest 1% here, come from wealthy families.  Well-connected families, who make sure their progeny get that job in the City, working for the uncle or family friend who just happens to run a hedge fund.

Pretty much the same here. Although our 1% are all migrants. They're family's all from Saudi.

[Tarzan_]

Although doesn't that remove the incentive to work hard ? If you can do less and live anyway?

Not sure those two things are polar opposites.  I know many hard-working people, people who work two jobs, but hard work in America doesn't equate to being well rewarded.  At least, not any longer.

And the opposite is true as well.  I'm not sure how you have it in the UK, but most of the wealthiest 1% here, come from wealthy families.  Well-connected families, who make sure their progeny get that job in the City, working for the uncle or family friend who just happens to run a hedge fund.

Pretty much the same here. Although our 1% are all migrants. They're family's all from Saudi.

I've seen pictures of the exotic car traffic jams, all those Lambos and Ferraris creeping through London streets at a walking pace.   

[demik]

Seems like politicians and corporation that buy politicians do more damage to America than a single mother of 2 and a family of illegal immigrants. . yet this country likes to ignore that and focus on the people that can't buy themselves out of their problems.

[Tarzan_]

Too damned true, Demik.

[SpAmRaY]

An Army with 450,000 soldiers is "too small" and at "high risk to meet one major war," the documents say. The Pentagon has been structured for decades to win two separate wars.

War is likely to break out again, according to the briefing.

^^ so i'm just being a conspiracy nut but I already predicted this one

[mauri]

An Army with 450,000 soldiers is "too small" and at "high risk to meet one major war," the documents say. The Pentagon has been structured for decades to win two separate wars.

War is likely to break out again, according to the briefing.

^^ so i'm just conspiracy nut but I already predicted this one

Thank god there are smaller (and richer) countries to pick on

[Glod]

we are so ****ed

[Leslieann]

An Army with 450,000 soldiers is "too small" and at "high risk to meet one major war," the documents say. The Pentagon has been structured for decades to win two separate wars.

War is likely to break out again, according to the briefing.

^^ so i'm just being a conspiracy nut but I already predicted this one

One problem with this scenario...

People forget that we are still technically at war with North Korea, so there is one war already. We have yet to even acknowledge them as a country, much less sign a peace treaty, we have zero diplomatic relations with them. We still have a ton of troops over there (nearly 30k when things are quiet), and have since the war began. Work on F-16's and you can pretty much bet you will get there at some point during a 4 year enlistment.

Pile on Afghanistan and Iraq (and other small skirmishes you don't know about) and our military is just taking a beating, it's worse in careers where they are understaffed (like mine was/is).  Also beer in mind, we pretty much are the de facto military for all of Europe, we have over 50 large installations and 5 times that in minor ones. Without us, their military expenditure would need to rise 400-900%. So while they laugh at our military expenditures, it's partly due to them and a promise we made to them after WW2. And then there is the U.N..


Is our military too large and are we spending too much, yes, but it's insufficient for what we are doing.


Oh, don't forget almost every congressman who votes for more, is almost always being paid to vote that way, and has stock in the companies supplying the military. Our military is like writing themselves a check. Why do you think Cheney was only too happy to invade Iraq.

[iri]

beer in mind

the best three words in your post.

[tp4tissue]

An Army with 450,000 soldiers is "too small" and at "high risk to meet one major war," the documents say. The Pentagon has been structured for decades to win two separate wars.

War is likely to break out again, according to the briefing.

^^ so i'm just being a conspiracy nut but I already predicted this one

One problem with this scenario...

People forget that we are still technically at war with North Korea, so there is one war already. We have yet to even acknowledge them as a country, much less sign a peace treaty, we have zero diplomatic relations with them. We still have a ton of troops over there (nearly 30k when things are quiet), and have since the war began. Work on F-16's and you can pretty much bet you will get there at some point during a 4 year enlistment.

Pile on Afghanistan and Iraq (and other small skirmishes you don't know about) and our military is just taking a beating, it's worse in careers where they are understaffed (like mine was/is).  Also beer in mind, we pretty much are the de facto military for all of Europe, we have over 50 large installations and 5 times that in minor ones. Without us, their military expenditure would need to rise 400-900%. So while they laugh at our military expenditures, it's partly due to them and a promise we made to them after WW2. And then there is the U.N..


Is our military too large and are we spending too much, yes, but it's insufficient for what we are doing.


Oh, don't forget almost every congressman who votes for more, is almost always being paid to vote that way, and has stock in the companies supplying the military. Our military is like writing themselves a check. Why do you think Cheney was only too happy to invade Iraq.

Exactly.

This is why I am against cuts to military spending.. You just can't do this.... no one would listen to you, if you do not have the largest sticks....

This is a simple fact...  The ONLY THING keeping the USA economy afloat is the fact that we are the bully...

Without the fear of our military... All the developed nations could dump USD reserves and we instantly become the poorest nation on earth...

Military spending is NOT at all only Pro-violence, like the hippies would have you believe....  It is pivotal to Social Order...

[vivalarevolución]

Well this thread exploded.  And does not seem like too many people here were affected by the shutdown.  I did try to visit a national park installation last weekend, Lincoln's Boyhood Home, and it was closed.  As a history buff, I was pissed.

The leaders that are elected reflect the quality of the voters.  Most people around here are smarter than the average bear, but most people bopping around in the world want somebody as dumb and humorless as themselves to be in office.

One thing that makes me grateful for our country is the attitude of immigrants.  Most of the taxi drivers in my city are from Ethiopia and Eritrea, and they are absolutely thrilled to have a flexible job that provides for their family or gives them time to study at the community college.  I just read about a Palestinian girl that had a huge struggle to get out of the Gaza Strip just to attend college here and be able to move freely.  Other examples are abound.  Places that appear as rust belt dumps to us might appear as a land of stability and opportunity for others.

In general, what lacks among people I meet these days is a sense of gratitude for what we have.  The sour attitude of our politics and media only steer us towards the negatives, and make it appear that everything is going down the dump.  Yea, some statistics for our country compared to other rich countries are terrible.  But what gets lost is a sense of gratitude and a desire to provide others with the same opportunities that have been provided to some of us.

[Leslieann]

The leaders that are elected reflect the quality of the voters.

Or Gerrymandering.

[fohat.digs]

The leaders that are elected reflect the quality of the voters.

Or Gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is an abomination. Districts should be set by computer and no county ever divided unless necessary.

Unfortunately, it is one (of many) of the pre-Industrial-Revolution encumbrances that the Founding Fathers saddled us with.

[Krogenar]

The leaders that are elected reflect the quality of the voters.

Or Gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is an abomination. Districts should be set by computer and no county ever divided unless necessary.

Unfortunately, it is one (of many) of the pre-Industrial-Revolution encumbrances that the Founding Fathers saddled us with.

Gerrymandering was (and is) used for the enfranchisement of racial minorities. Is gerrymandering wrong under those circumstances?

http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/racial-gerrymandering-resegregates-the-u-s-south

Imagine a racial minority in a traditionally white area -- would it be wrong to gerrymander a district so that these minority communities can get leaders elected that represent them? Otherwise their choices are: "Republican White Guy" and "Democratic White Guy". I think the prevailing attitude among racial gerrymandering is that minorities can only be properly represented by members of their own racial group. Which, to me, sounds a lot like racism.

I don't support gerrymandering in any form. Let the districts be drawn either by computer, or let them be drawn in a way that represents geographic areas and longstanding regional definitions.

[dustinhxc]

We couldnt go to some Government Parks on our Honeymoon But we went to MT HOOD so that was great!